Not so long ago – it’s been less than a decade – the New York Times and the Washington Post were almost neck and neck in the race for readers, reputation and scoops. The Times was always bigger, but the two were somewhat comparable.

These days, that’s far from reality. The Post has been declining in influence, newsroom staff and financial health – losing at least $100m a year – while the Times is on an astonishing upward trajectory, with operating profit approaching $200m annually.

The Times boasts about 13 million digital subscribers compared to the Post’s roughly 2 million. It now has newsroom staff around the world of well over 2,000, while the Post has slipped to only 400, after reaching a height of more than 1,000.

There’s no question now of who won the war.

Why this dramatic difference?

I was the Times public editor until 2016, at a moment when consumer-related revenue (especially online subscriptions) became dominant over traditional print-advertising revenue. That was a major milestone on the march to digital success. Then, I was the Post’s media columnist throughout the entire first Trump administration, including during years of encouraging growth and success.

So, I’ve seen it all unfold before my eyes. The difference certainly wasn’t about journalistic talent. For decades, both newsrooms have been stuffed to........

© The Guardian